Burnham unopposed & likely to be PM by mid July

[Twiglets1]

Wes Streeting confirms on social media that he won’t stand as a candidate for the Labour leadership. He says that a contest where candidates spent the summer “exaggerating small differences” would not be good for the party or the country, and having spoken to Burnham, he is confident that that there is “a place” for the policies he has been advocating under a Burnham premiership.

The Guardian say this means it is now very, very likely that Burnham will be PM be mid July. It is conceivable that another candidate may come forward. But, apart from Streeting, no one else has publicly signalled an intention to stand, and with Burnham now a shoo-in, it is hard to imagine any other MP getting the support they would need to be a candidate.

heguardian.com/politics/live/2026/jun/22/keir-starmer-resignation-timeable-andy-burnham-labour-leadership-prime-minister-latest-news-updates?page=with%3Ablock-6a390a538f08adffab1e97fd#block-6a390a538f08adffab1e97fd

They get to say a successful black woman is irrelevant because Labour. Crickets

Idk how she put up with it. Tg he’s gone.

Yes, funny that…

Actually, I don’t give a damn what Bridget Philippson’s mother did or did not do nor where she Bridget went to school. All I want to know is that she is excellent at her job and delivers for State Education. She has not, she has failed State Education.
It is a pathetic state of affairs that none of these people have achieved anything in real life job wise relevant to the sector they are meant to deliver for, to the point that all they have to talk about is what type of school their grandmother’s uncle’s dog went to in the 1920s.

All rather ironic given the ‘spiteful class warrior’s’ dislike of Thatcher.

You do know you could buy council houses before 1979?

Thatcher’s RTB was introduced in 1980.

You know that, right?

Yes but that wasn't the start was it.

Tenants could but before as well.

If you reread my post, BP’s mother sold her house in 1990, under Thatcher’s RTB scheme.

You can see both the irony, and the hypocrisy, I hope?

It was 1990

You mean likable to the public? Why do people like him?

It’s all relative.

If some people like him, may I suggest it’s because they have fallen for his northern schtick?

Or, more simply - he’s not Starmer.

Probably the same reason many politians gets more popular when they leave parliament. He hasn't had to make any difficult decisions for a while. Being a mayor is much more about pet projects than balancing the books - the core work is done my the elected council. The minute he stops the triple lock or takes the £10bn out of benefits to fund defence he will become less popular with many people.

I am not concerned about Burnham going in anymore. If he doesn’t it is just another royal waste of time and uncertainty for longer, which drags us all down and increases national debt! The IMF have already warned us, he cannot spend more. He has to find money for Defence and spend very wisely there. The only CHANGE that is possible is to reshuffle Starmer’s shitty cabinet dead weight and put in strong characters who can actually lead and make the tough and very smart decisions to effect the real change the country needs.

The NEU has concluded: “Educators have lost confidence in Bridget Phillipson, and Labour members have lost confidence in the government's direction. The party as a whole needs a fundamental change of direction, starting with education. That means new leadership at the top of the party and new leadership in the Department for Education.”

Same for Reeves, but he has to be careful who he appoints as if seen as too left it will be even more of a bond crisis than last time.

And then he needs to let those new cabinet ministers lead effectively. There are some good strong characters in the Labour Party who can do it, Burnham literally just needs to not feel threatened by them and pick the right ones. That is the Change we need.

“The minute he stops the triple lock or takes the £10bn out of benefits to fund defence he will become less popular with many people.”

He has to do some of this. There is not really a choice. The extra child benefit should also go to schools where it actually makes a difference to children as it is handled by professionals.
They soften it with pension credit availability and other stuff.
If you put extra child benefit into schools and hire more staff, you also get the economy growing at the same time.

I’m afraid that I see things differently - irrespective of who is in the cabinet, this Labour government is run by the back benches and the unions. There is therefore no hope of meaningful reform.

Burnham is a caretaker/hostage, as you prefer, and his downfall is merely a function of time - as ‘two-year Starmer’s’ was.

The backbench problem last year was that they declined to cut PIP.

That was a symptom of Starmer's failure to 'roll the ground' with them.

Very well said.

Again, context (ain’t it wonderful?)

Starmer failed to get 5 bn of a future increase stopped, from a total welfare bill of, what, 330 bn?

‘Rolling the ground’ or otherwise - it tells you just how stymied Burnham will be.

As others have said - the bond market will straighten him out, however much Burnham thinks otherwise.

I’m not sure yet between these two interesting posts but I did note Labour MPs talked about Starmer’s authoritarian control on their own party, which is entirely unsurprising, and that Burnham wouldn’t be like that.

Even talk of (much) lower use of the three line whip. If they expect more freedom on votes it could get interesting.

Burnham isn’t thick. He can’t piss off the bond markets or he will be Mr Cabbage especially if he was just in by crowning.
In some ways, it is good he just comes in because he can then simply control the rest of them and whip them. That is what the country needs at this point. No use in spending all our cash on interest and not being safe at all. He has to regain investor and business confidence immediately or he will be toast by Christmas.

He’s definitely reined in the bond market what bond market chat with the ‘fiscal rules’ reaffirmation.

He needs to get the right chancellor too.

I agree with you - Starmer is known to be a populist weathervane - a people pleaser.

There is an excellent piece in the FT, written by a northern journo who has followed Burnham for years.

I will try to share.

The decade that made Andy Burnham
What 10 years covering the Manchester mayor’s many reinventions taught me about the man who wants to lead Britain.

Read ‘Burnham’, not Starmer.

Well if Andy Burnham has to channel his inner Simon Cowell too so be it.

Kemi Badenoch has mocked Labour after a party figure claimed Andy Burnham would be their “first woman prime minister”.

Earlier today, a senior Labour figure, speaking anonymously, told The Spectator that Mr Burnham would come into No 10 surrounded by “female advisers and backers”.

They added: “The reason Labour have always craved, but also been cautious about, a female leader is because, in a Labour Government, she could have an unashamedly female agenda, focused on health, education, family finances, and issues like safer streets...

“Along comes Andy, surrounded by female advisers and backers, but more importantly, genuinely passionate about all those traditionally female-oriented issues, and much less so with the bombs and bullets.”

In response, Mrs Badenoch said: “Labour might have changed leader, but they still don’t know what a woman is.”

😂

Over to JKR…

https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/2070152896583254434?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2070152896583254434%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fpolitics%2F2026%2F06%2F25%2Frachel-reeves-backs-burnham-for-pm%2F